The Validity of Sessionrating of Perceived Exertion Method for Quantifying Training Load in Teamgym

Minganti, Carlo; Capranica, Laura; Meeusen, Romain; Amici, Stefano; Piacentini, Maria Francesca

doi:10.1519/jsc.0b013e3181cc26b9

Cited by 33 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…32 Because of its simplicity, sRPE (which was anticipated by Gastin contemporaneously with first publication of sRPE 31 and used to plan and periodize the training of Australian Football players) has become widely used. [33][34][35][36][37] Because of the simplicity of sRPE, it has been possible to use it to analyze the data derived to examine the relationship between training load and performance 5 and to demonstrate that derived variables such as monotony and strain contribute to maladaptive responses to training. 38 There has been interest for many years in whether responses during submaximal exercise could serve as surrogate markers of how Figure 4 -Schematic of running speed versus heart rate (HR) and blood lactate.…”

Section: The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Foster

Rodríguez-Marroyo

Koning³

2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

197

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Training monitoring is about keeping track of what athletes accomplish in training, for the purpose of improving the interaction between coach and athlete. Over history there have been several basic schemes of training monitoring. In the earliest days training monitoring was about observing the athlete during standard workouts. However, difficulty in standardizing the conditions of training made this process unreliable. With the advent of interval training, monitoring became more systematic. However, imprecision in the measurement of heart rate (HR) evolved interval training toward index workouts, where the main monitored parameter was average time required to complete index workouts. These measures of training load focused on the external training load, what the athlete could actually do. With the advent of interest from the scientific community, the development of the concept of metabolic thresholds and the possibility of trackside measurement of HR, lactate, VO 2 , and power output, there was greater interest in the internal training load, allowing better titration of training loads in athletes of differing ability. These methods show much promise but often require laboratory testing for calibration and tend to produce too much information, in too slow a time frame, to be optimally useful to coaches. The advent of the TRIMP concept by Banister suggested a strategy to combine intensity and duration elements of training into a single index concept, training load. Although the original TRIMP concept was mathematically complex, the development of the session RPE and similar low-tech methods has demonstrated a way to evaluate training load, along with derived variables, in a simple, responsive way. Recently, there has been interest in using wearable sensors to provide high-resolution data of the external training load. These methods are promising, but problems relative to information overload and turnaround time to coaches remain to be solved. Watching athletes perform well, set personal records or win competitions, are great pleasures for sports scientists. To think that the information that you have collected on the athlete, or synthesized from the literature, has helped the athlete achieve optimal performance is "as good as it gets" for support staff. Conversely, watching a poor performance inspires analysis of what went wrong, with preparation, tactics, or execution of the competitive plan. This provides the basis for the questions that drive sport-science research. Because so much of the preparation of athletes is related to the structure and details of the training program, there is a natural emphasis on how training influences performance. This interest goes into history, to Milo of Crotona, the Italian farm boy who lifted a growing bullock daily until he became the strongest man in the world and legend of the ancient Olympics. This story provides the historical grounding for the quest to understand the training response, most uniquely characterized by the concept of progression of the training load, and to...

show abstract

Section: The Presentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Foster

Rodríguez-Marroyo

Koning³

2017

International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance

197

152

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…R esults indicate that session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) is a versatile marker of training load that can provide valid estimates of training loads during activities that are intermittent in nature (6,11,(17)(18)(19) or that vary in technical difficulty of complex motor skills (17,18). Moreover, SRPE has been demonstrated to be sensitive to changes in intensity (measured by percentage 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) (4,16,23,25) and total work during resistance exercise training to failure (21).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate

Kraft

Green

Thompson

2014

Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Session ratings of perceived exertion (SRPE) during resistance training may be influenced by specific exercise parameters. The purpose of this study was to examine the influence of work rate (total work per unit time) and recording time on SRPE. Participants performed 3 exercise bouts of bench press, lat pull-down, overhead press, upright row, triceps extension, and biceps curl at 60% of predetermined 1 repetition maximum according to these protocols: (a) 3 sets × 8 repetitions (reps) × 1.5 minutes of recovery, (b) 3 sets × 8 reps × 3 minutes of recovery, and (c) 2 sets × 12 reps × 3 minutes of recovery. Session ratings of perceived exertion for the 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery (5.3 ± 1.8) and 2 × 12 × 3-minute recovery trials (6.2 ± 1.7) were significantly greater vs. 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial (4.2 ± 1.8). The difference approached significance between work rate-matched protocols (p = 0.08). No difference was observed between SRPE at 15 minutes (5.1 ± 1.8) vs. 30 minutes (5.2 ± 1.9) post exercise. Post-set in-task ratings of perceived exertion were higher for the 2 × 12 × 3-minute recovery trial (5.9 ± 1.4) vs. 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery trial (4.8 ± 1.2) and 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial (4.0 ± 1.6). The difference approached significance (p = 0.07) for the 3 × 8 × 3-minute recovery trial vs. 3 × 8 × 1.5-minute recovery trial. Session ratings of perceived exertion responded to changes in work rate with no significant difference at matched work rates, indicating that SRPE is responsive to training load. Results indicated that more proximal monitoring (15 minutes post exercise) yielded reliable estimates of SRPE increasing the practical utility of the measure.

show abstract

“…Engelmann et al showed that breaks during complex laparoscopic surgery reduced psychological stress maintaining efficiency without prolonging operating time [5]. In athletics, Borg CR10 is used to score and plan the methodology of training [15]. This helps to decide the optimal time spent in training as low-level sustained muscular activity results in musculoskeletal pain [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study to compare the pain, discomfort and tiredness between straight stick and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: an in vitro study

Mukhopadhyay

Ind

2015

Gynecol Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compares pain and tiredness experienced by a student and gynaecological surgeons of varying experience between straight sticks (SS) and single-incision laparoscopic surgery (SILS) in vitro. Data was collected prospectively with randomization of the mode sequence. Participants from two hospitals performed identical exercise of cutting circles using SS and SILS in vitro. Questionnaires (Borg CR10 scale scores) were completed at 0, 30 and 60 min, respectively. Wilcoxon's signed ranked tests were performed on matched pairs of SS and SILS on the number of circles cut and the mistakes between 0-30 and 30-60 min, respectively. There were significant differences between the two groups at 30 min in arm discomfort, hand and finger discomfort, shoulder girdle tiredness, arm tiredness and most significantly in wrist discomfort with a matched median difference of 1.83, confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 2.67 and P=0.003. At 60 min, the significant differences between the two groups were in shoulder girdle pain, arm discomfort, hand and finger discomfort, neck tiredness, wrist tiredness, and hand and finger tiredness and the most significant was wrist discomfort with a matched median difference of 1.75, CI 0.50 to 3.25 and P= 0.011. SS causes less tiredness and discomfort in an in vitro setting than with SILS.

show abstract

The Validity of Sessionrating of Perceived Exertion Method for Quantifying Training Load in Teamgym

Cited by 33 publications

References 15 publications

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Monitoring Training Loads: The Past, the Present, and the Future

Session Ratings of Perceived Exertion Responses During Resistance Training Bouts Equated for Total Work but Differing in Work Rate

A study to compare the pain, discomfort and tiredness between straight stick and single-incision laparoscopic surgery: an in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About